Blog #12B - Good Night and Good Luck

Choose three statements – one from each speech – and discuss how each statement can be applied to our world and political or social situations today.

" No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Good night, and good luck."
– See it Now broadcast, March 9 1954

If we confuse dissent with disloyalty — if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox — if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the . . . confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought."
– Ford Fiftieth Anniversary Show, CBS and NBC, June 1953

“We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Speech at Radio-Television News Directors Association, Chicago, October 15, 1958.

Blog #11B - Should the government tell us the truth?

Back in the 1950s, Americans practiced "Duck and Cover" drills when the threat of nuclear war became greater with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Films about Bert the Turtle would help America understand the necessity of hiding out the blasts.

These drills would save the children of America from the nuclear blast, apparently, and then we could come out afterwards as if it was a bad storm and rebuild. The government even downplayed the damage done during a nuclear war: in a 1955 film called "About Fallout", it says that "radiation is something that we live with everyday." While technically correct, high levels of toxic radiation left after a nuclear blast isn't what I think he's talking about. If you'd like, check out the film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dobys9s9f2w

Without proper shelter, the film says, millions will die from the fallout. 2 feet of earth, 5.5 feet of wood will help protect us. Time is also our ally, the film says. Within 2 weeks, mostly all the radiation is decayed. One thing I found odd was when it said (and I'm paraphrasing here):

that if radiation falls on your food, the food isn't harmed or made radioactive
b/c radiation damages living tissue. Simply remove the fallout particles
with regular everyday food preparation methods... if you accidentally swallow
fall out particles, they will do you no immediate harm (!) [at this point, it
shows a 1950s in an apron -with no gloves - rinsing off tomatoes in a
kitchen].

It seems laughable today, given the immense power of the nuclear bombs that simple drills like these could keep Americans safe. Someone must have known how bad these bombs were and how devastating they would have been had they hit American cities. They would have made the 9/11/01 attacks look tame by comparison in both death toll and destruction. This isn't to minimize those horrific terror attacks, but those airplanes weren't nuclear bombs. And most of the damage in New York was done, in my opinion, by the falling WTC buildings, not the airplanes.

Today, I get the same feeling that we aren't being told the complete and utter truth about how to defend ourselves against possible bio and chem weapons attack. In 2002, when we were told about plastic sheeting and duct tape, I thougt it laughable too, but in the back of my mind, I thought, "what if...?" and I went out and bought some anyway. SUCKER!

What else should I do? Go to an army surplus store and buy gas masks? Stock up on food supplies and water? Get a gun just in case? And whose job is it to protect us? Ourselves? Homeland security?

So, the questions are:

1. Should the government have told Americans the cold hard facts about nuclear war in the 1950s instead of shielding them from the truth? Why would the gov't. have concealed this info from us? How do you think the American people would have reacted when told? Why?

2. Is the gov't. doing all it can to help us prepare for the next terrorist attack - whatever, wherever, whenever it may be? If not, what needs to be done? If so, what have they done to help us in the Detroit area?

Due Wednesday, January 30 (200 words minimum).

Blog #4A - Illegal Immigration

A big topic in this election year has been the candidates' stance on illegal immigration. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States currently w/ approx. 400,000 coming in every year. Most of these folks have arrived as tourists and have overstayed the terms of their visas so they are not the ones that you might envision sneaking across the border in the middle of the night. In order to survive, many of the illegals take jobs that don't require Social Security numbers or they find employers who don't do background checks. Many of these jobs are ones that some Americans don't want. So, these folks are criticized for not paying their taxes. Yet, I wonder, how can they pay their taxes if they're not allowed to have a SS card or #?

So, my questions for you concern the future treatment of illegal immigrants:
1. Should children of illegals be allowed to go to public schools? Why or why not?
2. Should the current illegals that are here now be given the opportunity to become American citizens? Why or why not? If so, under what conditions? If not, what should happen to them?
3. Should prevent future illegal immigrants from coming to America? Do we need to build a wall? Increased border patrols? Or, should we relax our immigration restrictions so that more people can share in the American dream? Why?

Your answer is due Monday, January 28, and should be a minimum of 200 words. Thanks.

Extra credit opportunity: research one of the 8 remaining Presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Ron Paul, and Guiliani) and find out what his/her views are on immigration. Then, summarize those views in 2 paragraphs in your own words. You can email this to me or turn it in by Wednesday, January 30th.
- One suggestion on research - check the candidate's website for accurate information on immigration. If you just type in "Obama + immigration" into a search engine, you're liable to find all kinds of crazy junk out there. Remember, the internet is a tool, but it's also a place where anybody can publish anything.

Blog #10B The Right Reasons?

Many people will look back at the use of the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, and with perfect hindsight, question the wisdom of dropping the bombs. The critics will point to Cold War and the creation of over 40,000 nuclear bombs just by the Soviet Union and the United States alone between 1945-1991. The critics will point to the current spread of nuclear weapons to rogue countries like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Furthermore, there's no clear location on dozens if not hundreds of nuclear warheads lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But, many people, including respected historians, will assert that the bombs ended the war. Would Japan have surrendered w/o the destruction of two whole cities? Possibly. But, when faced with the prospect of dozens of Okinawa battlefields, President Truman agreed to their use. He had hoped to avoid the death of countless hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese soldiers.

So, in 150 words, looking over your notes for Okinawa and how that influenced the decision to drop the bomb, do you think the U.S. dropped them for the right reasons? Or did the eventual consequences listed in the first paragraph outweigh the end of the war? Explain why.

Blog #9B - Would you fight if drafted?

As the American military has been stretched thinner and thinner by our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past six years plus the falling retention rate of soldiers, talk of reinstating a draft has continued to come up. This talk of a draft is like that dandelion in your yard that just won't go away.

In 2003, on the eve of war with Iraq, a bill was introduced in Congress that called for reinstating the draft but with much fairer provisions than the one that was ended in the mid 1970s used to fight the Vietnam War. Back then, the poor and minorities were drafted much more often than wealthy white males who had connections and could use them to get out of the draft (Bill Clinton), or get nice national guard duty (George W. Bush, former V.P. Dan Quayle), or get medical deferments (Dick Cheney). Many other wealthy people got to use college deferments as a way to get out of the draft.

This new bill introduced in 2003 would supposedly eliminate all of these deferments and make it harder for American citizens to move to and live in Canada to evade the draft. The bill called for 2 years of service to the American government for both men and women between the ages of 18-26. The bill sat in committee for over a year and a half and then was finally voted down overwhelmingly (402-2 in the House on HR 163) a month before the 2004 election. Gee, what a surprise!

During the time period we're studying, World War 2, the U.S. also needed a draft to supply the soldiers to fight fascism. According to our textbook, 5 million men volunteered for the war, and the draft was expanded to include another 10 million.

Currently, there is no draft. According to this CBS News article that I found, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/22/national/main2291979.shtml, sometime in the near future (before 2009 - the story was published Dec. 22, 2006) the government will test the Selective Service System which hasn't been tested since 1998. But, as evidenced by General Lute's testimony here, some people still think it's a good idea.

So, my questions for you are:

1. If drafted when you're old enough to fight in the war on terror, would you fight? Why or why not? Would it depend on the situation or is it important that you answer the call when your country needs you? Why?

2. If you had lived during World War 2 times and the Japanese had just bombed Pearl Harbor (and you're of draft age), BOYS - would you have volunteered or waited to have been drafted? Explain your answer.

GIRLS - Would you have supported your father's/brother's/ boyfriend's/husband's choice to volunteer for the war or would you have encouraged him to wait? Why?

(100 words minimum for each question - 1 and 2 - is fine).

Before you answer, you may want to read this pro/con piece from a couple of veterans at Georgia Tech University. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/History/Reinstate.html Both of them bring up some very valid points for and against a draft.

Sources:

1. June 2007, Bush War Advisor Says Draft Worth A Look. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/11/3117/

2. Dec. 22, 2006, Military Draft System to be Tested.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/22/national/main2291979.shtml

Blog #3A - Indian Mascots - Right or Wrong?

We've seen them for years - the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins are probably two of the biggest sports franchises that have continued to use Native American mascots. In 2001, the Redskins were urged to change their mascot by a retired school teacher. Team spokesman Carl Swanson responded, “We appreciate people’s concerns about our team name. However, a Native American was the first owner of our team. He gave the team its name. The people of the area and fans of the team understand that Redskins symbolize the greatness and strength of a proud people.”



Some of the logos you also see here belong to the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Florida State Seminoles. I recently mentioned that the NCAA had issued a ban on all Indian mascots unless the university met certain criteria. Florida State was one of the universities allowed to keep their mascots.



Quoted from Tolerance.org on the mascot issue:

Barbara Munson, a member of the Oneida Nation and an activist with the Wisconsin Indian Education Association, explains:

"We experience (the use of Native mascots) as no less than a mockery of our cultures. We see objects sacred to us - such as eagle feathers, face painting and traditional dress - being used not in sacred ceremony, or in any cultural setting, but in another culture's game.
Yes, we are proud of the warriors who fought to protect our cultures from forced removal and systematic genocide and to preserve our lands from the greed of others. We are proud, and we don't want them demeaned by being "honored" in a sports activity on a playing field.

Indian men are not limited to the role of warrior; in many of our
cultures a good man is learned, gentle, patient, wise and deeply spiritual. In present time as in the past, our men are also sons and brothers, husbands, uncles, fathers and grandfathers.
Contemporary Indian men work in a broad spectrum of occupations, wear contemporary clothes, and live and love just as men from other cultural backgrounds do.
The depictions of Indian “braves,” “warriors” and “chiefs” also ignore the roles of women and children. Many Indian Nations are both matrilineal and child-centered.

Indian cultures identify women with the Creator, because of their ability to bear children, and with the Earth, which is Mother to us all.
In most Indian cultures the highest value is given to children — they are closest to the Creator and they embody the future."

Go to YouTube and check out the video - "How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans". It's about 5:20 and it shows the way movies and TV programs portrayed Indians. It's extremely thought-provoking. Hopefully this
url works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hJFi7SRH7Q

So, what's your opinion? Should high school, college or even professional teams be allowed to have Indian mascots? Why or why not? 150 words minimum.

Issues to think about:

1. What if situations were reversed and other ethnic groups were used instead? Would that be acceptable?

2. Do you force a professional team to change their mascot? How?

Sources:

1. You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hJFi7SRH7Q

2. Tolerance.org - http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=168

3. In Whose Honor? A Documentary Film - http://www.inwhosehonor.com/

4.